Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

itwbennett writes "A Federal judge dismissed Paul Allen's initial patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Facebook, Google and others earlier this month because it was too vague and gave Allen until Dec. 28 to file an amendment providing more details of his claims. His lawyers responded with a 35-page document filed late Tuesday. The amendment details features of the defendants' websites that are alleged to infringe on the patents and also includes a last-minute amendment that targets Google's Android mobile operating system in a move that could spell trouble for phone manufacturers and app developers."

I doubt Android users are trembling. 1) the thing has already been dismissed once, we'll see if the "new detail" is enough, and 2) it already has Oracle coming after it in its mad dash to monetize Java.

If Google had used Java it would have had to use the crippled "Java Mobile Edition" and not the full suite. It is precisely because Google used the full suite as the basis for their language, and not the mobile subset, that Oracle has any problem with them at all.

If, as TFA indicates, the same patent can be violated by iTunes and a spam filter, then it seems pretty likely that the patent is trying to assert a claim over an *idea* and not a specific invention. Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

wow pretty impressive similarity. Question is with modern courts would selton have lost, and actually if I recall correctly ford's big contribution wasn't the automobile itself, but the manufacturing process. If ford wanted to patent troll, he would have to do so with the assembly line, Back then even the most determined and foolhearty troll wouldn't have believed in patenting an idea like that, These days, I wouldn't put it past anyone.

Well, we can't depend on a court to display intelligence. All it can decide is who has the best lawyer. From TFA:
For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 24, when a user receives a new Google Voice message, the Android Operating System and Google Voice software display a notification in the status bar screen for a short period of time.

Henry Ford refused to pay George Seldon royalties for his patent for a "Road Engine". Up to that time, every car manufacturer in the United States paid Seldon a royalty. Seldon would today be called a patent troll. The only reason Ford won in court was the vehicle patented by Seldon did not function when finally built according to the idea that Seldon had patented. Had Seldon patented a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" Ford probably would have lost.

I would like to think that had Seldon tried to patent a "Thing with wheels on it and an engine" back in the early 1900's/late 1890's, he would have been laughed out of the patent office. It is my impression (that might be wrong) that the patent examiner's output is deteriorating over time (which means that it is improving when going back in time).

Henry Ford refused to pay George Seldon royalties for his patent for a "Road Engine". Up to that time, every car manufacturer in the United States paid Seldon a royalty. Seldon would today be called a patent troll. The only reason Ford won in court was the vehicle patented by Seldon did not function when finally built according to the idea that Seldon had patented.
Cheers
JE

Nitpick! Straight from guess where:

The legal fight lasted eight years,... and ended in a victory for Selden. In his decision, the judge wrote that the patent covered any automobile propelled by an engine powered by gasoline vapor. Posting a bond of $350,000, Ford appealed, and on January 10, 1911 won his case based on an argument that the engine used in automobiles was not based on George Brayton's engine, the Brayton engine which Selden had improved, but on the Otto engine.

IOW his car did work, but people actually used a better engine by then.
Funnily enough, that was one year before the patent would have expired anyway.

More early patent trolling [centennialofflight.gov]. A form of eminent domain is needed as long as people keep trying to claim that we're dealing with real property here. And the states should have a right to tax it as such as long as it can be held privately with restricted access.

Can you imagine the impact if Henry Ford had been able to patent "thing with wheels on it and a motor"?

Yeah, a lawsuit for prior art by people who invented the car. Ford just stuck it all on a production line, he didn't invent the thing. Now, if he had of patented a "production line of any sort for things with wheels on it and a motor" he might have killed off GM, Toyota, Nissan, etc etc before they could start up... or got lots of money from them emulating him, or got sued for monopolistic practises if it became impossible for people to compete.

Patents are words on paper. They are nothing more and nothing less than ideas. Specific inventions are manifestations of ideas. It is the idea that is patented, not the thing.

This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the pro

This patent was filed in 1996. This means it will expire in 2016. At that time, it will go into the public domain and be available for all to use as they see fit, free of charge. This is, in my opinion, superior to copyright. Copyright lasts forever (practically, if not literally). If Allen had copyright, rather than patent, the protection would last much longer. (An American law expert can confirm whether patent expiration timing starts from time of filing or time of grant)

Nonsense. You can have copyright protection on whatever you post here for eternity, I still have the freedom to post what _I_ write and you can do nothing about it. Copyright gives the copyright holder protection from theft, but it doesn't give them any power over anyone else's creation. Patents, on the other hand, stop others from doing the same thing independently.

That's why we complain about _stupid_ patents like these here, because they stop or try to stop people from doing things that are trivial. Y

Insurance doesn't give you protection from theft... Locked doors and laws relating to the ownership of property and restricted access to private property do that (when enforced by the police).

Insurance provides you with financial compensation for when the above protections failed to protect your house and belongings. If you fail to have basic protections such as locked doors then your insurance won't pay you a penny.

However now that I think about it, copyright and patents are more like insurance than a pr

Has been covering this one. Allen's Interval has patented things that absolutely everyone has been using for decades, if not longer, and this may just help with the fight against software patents generally, as virtually no one is untouched -- he's only sued less the half the relevant world so far -- big media is a possible target for some of his claims as well. GoodLuckWithThat, they are even feared by lawmakers. Let's hope they go all out so this stupid mess can be ended.
Here's the groklaw current link. [groklaw.net]

Sadly, that's not the case. Allen's company Interval Licensing exists for the sole purpose of "inventing" stuff, i.e. getting a bunch of people together (there's one very famous SF writer doing part-time work for this firm, I forgot his name though) to brainstorm up this "one step beyond the immediately obvious" crap, patent it, then licence and/or sue. And the company knows that despite the fact that some of this stuff shouldn't be patentable even under the broken patent system, they know that they can s

No, I don't think it's on purpose (though one could hope) -- but I think that may be the result of this if they push it hard enough.
At some point it becomes a kind of national issue, when a troll comes out of the woodwork and basically says "all your work for the last couple decades is mine".

At some point the powers that be can't let it happen even if technically/legally it's true in some odd way. Think of the implied surprise wealth transfer by legal force this implies if taken to the limit -- bigger th

To make a non car analogy to what you are saying. It's like Paul Allen is Worf trying to clear his father's name and the Court, who is like the Klingon High Council, convinces him to accept his father's guilt because the criminal's (Google, MS, Apple, Facebook, et al), who are like Duras, family has become so powerful that exposing his crimes now would cause great political upheaval in the empire.

I'm surprised that Paul Allen had the balls to sue AOL over this. After all AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were giving people hyperlinked images and sound before the world wide web was a household name and definitely before Gore cosponsored a bill that gave consumer access to the internet in '92 with the Information and Infrastructure Act.

I have a pocket watch hanging beside my monitor to "present information to the user in a non-distracting way from the user's primary interaction." Once Allen has finished with the biggies, he'll eventually work his way down to me. I've been doing that since 1992 or so. Bring it!

652 in particular seems like a weird one. The patent was filed in '96 and Windows gained the taskbar in '95 with widgets that display notifications. It's not even as if the windows taskbar was the first to do this, but it is a mainstream application that meets the specific claims that are being cited a year before the patent was filed.

It seems to me, in a country where law is based on precedent and more money buying better lawyers, a winning strategy would be to sue the least wealthy of the offenders, who don't have the financial resources to defend themselves, and then sue bigger and bigger offenders, using your now established precedent to help win.

There are two types of patenters. The first patents invetions he or she built or designed to stop others from copying it. The second patents vague ideas that do not tie to any invention or product with the goal of suing anyone who might possibly be seen as infringing. Otherwise known as a Patent Troll.

This guy appears to be the latter. Given he is a Microsofty doesnt help him either.

Err, those are the same thing. If I get a patent on an idea, which is what software patents are, then I can sue anyone infringing. Copying and infringing are the same thing.

The problem is that we are using 17th century solutions (patents) for modern problems. Its laughable that we even take these things seriously. Sadly, its 100% legal to patent "one click shopping" and other concepts. Software patents are too vague by their nature. Patents are old fashioned and make no sense in a modern economy. Perhaps

If I make something and then get a patent on some or all of it, that's legitimate. If I don't make anything but one day say "You know what would be cool? Buying things on the internet but, like, you don't have to fill out a whole form, you only have to click once!" and then patenting it, then later suing online merchants who actually do this.

Overly broad patents based on real products are also problematic, too, of course.

Wrong. There is another type. Companies who patent ideas they are using to keep patent trolls from patenting it later and suing them. These are "defensive" patents.

The problem with excusing such behavior is that those companies have a tendency to go out of business and get bought by patent trolls, and because they were the first company with the idea... you get the idea. Or the board decides the CEO isn't making enough money and replaces him/her with someone more litigious, who fires all the engineers, hir

is to cancel all accounts from Paul Allen's family and anyone working at his company, and send them an email saying that they are not allowed to have a new account until this patent case is solved.I'm pretty sure that if this guy has a daughter, and she cannot have a Facebook account, Mark Zuckerberg will be able to hear the screams from his own house.

is to cancel all accounts from Paul Allen's family and anyone working at his company, and send them an email saying that they are not allowed to have a new account until this patent case is solved.
I'm pretty sure that if this guy has a daughter, and she cannot have a Facebook account, Mark Zuckerberg will be able to hear the screams from his own house.

Well now, that is a DAMN GOOD IDEA!!! The wailing will be relentless!! Bummer is - PA has never married....... For this to work PA himself needs to feel the pain.

Why the narrow definition? I already own the patent on "storing, manipulating and using data in any form whatsoever", My lawyer is just checking whether I can file a posthumous lawsuit against Gutenberg.

The NextStep system on my desk has been doing this since at least 1991, which is before Interval Research was even founded. The Mail app icon changes whenever there's new mail available, in "an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction".

Oh, wait, I've got it configured so that it also plays a barking dog sound when the mail arrives - not quite unobtrusive.

Really, the defendants are guilty of "comparing related information" using a computer system. If data is not related then exactly what is the point of comparing it? If the patent was about how to compare Apples to Oranges then perhaps there might be something to it, but this patent fails all reasonable tests for validity. Mr Allen better be ready to pay all court costs for all the defendants legal fees, and there will be many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Allen [wikipedia.org]
"Paul Gardner Allen (born January 21, 1953) is an American investor and philanthropist who co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates and is one of the wealthiest people in the world with a personal wealth of US$12.7 billion as of 2010."

Paul Allen has gone from being moderately useful to technology (a single unified Windows platform) to becoming an absolute pariah to the average user. If he just went away now quietly 99% of the world wouldn't miss him for a moment.